INTERIM REPORT OF THE SME ´LOW´ LEVEL GROUP

8/14/2019 INTERIM REPORT OF THE SME LOW LEVEL GROUP

1/18

INTERIM REPORT OF THE SME LOW LEVEL GROUP

On the Implementation of the 21 Proposalsfor the Reduction of Administrative Burdens

Spring Update 2009


2/18


3/18

3

The revision of the EU Battery Waste Directive with the aim to clarify and modify certain aspects of its scope - is already fullyimplemented. That means that European entrepreneurs have now saved huge logistical costs of recalling batteries which alreadyhave been placed on the market.

The suggestion concerning the Emissions Trading Directive has been positively taken up by the European Parliament and the

Council and will soon be published. We see it as a big achievement for European small companies and industry that best-practiceenterprises exposed to carbon leakage will get emission certificates for free in the future, explained Mr Leitl. The SME opt-out of 25000 tons and a capacity threshold of up to 35 Megawatt were agreed. Therefore EU member states are now al lowed to exempt theirSMEs from the costly administrative monitoring and reporting compliance costs of the EU Emission Trading System. 63% of allinstallations (i.e. 2.4% of all installations emissions) have now the possibility to opt-out. The reduction of the administrative burden isEU-wide estimated with a minus of EUR 94.5 million.

The urgent suggestions to cut red tape for EU structural funds were taken up by the European Commission. That means for SMEsthat money will soon become faster and easier accessible for businesses in the regions.

The LLG will continue its fight for the implementation of all proposals presented, at all legislative levels, concluded JADE PresidentThomas Barthelet.

The Low Level Group

The Low Level Group was created at the end of 2007 to support and encourage the European Commissions High Level Expert Groupto fight against administrative burdens. It was set up by the SME UNION of the European Peoples Party, EUROCHAMBRES (theAssociation of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry) and JADE (the European Confederation of Junior Enterprises). It is madeup of seven SME entrepreneurs from the grass root level and seven SME experts providing background support.

The full report of the Low Level Groups achievements can be downloaded fromwww.eurochambres.euorwww.sme-union.eu/docs

------------------------

Press Contacts:SME UNION Franziska Annerl,[email protected],+32 (0)2 218 37 76

EUROCHAMBRES Guendalina Cominotti,[email protected], +32 (0)2 282 08 66JADE Florent Barel,[email protected], +32 (0)2 420 17 52
http://www.eurochambres.eu/http://www.eurochambres.eu/http://www.sme-union.eu/docshttp://www.sme-union.eu/docshttp://www.sme-union.eu/docsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sme-union.eu/docshttp://www.eurochambres.eu/


4/18

4

General Remarks

On 5 June 2008 the SME Low Level Working Group to Fight Administrative Burdens (LLG) has presented its 21 proposals for thereduction of administrative burdens.

The contribution of the LLG has been submitted to the European Commission, the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens andto the media during a Press Conference organised together with the LLG partners EUROCHAMBRES and JADE. CommissionerVerheugen called our proposals concrete, practical, innovative and quickly realisable.

The full package of measures proposed by the Low Level Group can be downloaded fromwww.sme-union.org/docs

From several meetings with the European Commission (e.g. Commission Vice-President Verheugen, DG Enterprise Director-

General Zourek) we know that the suggestions have been well received. In his speech at the Commissions Conference CuttingRed Tape for Europe in June 2008, Commissioner Verheugen has referred to the catalogue of the LLG as very interestingproposals for simplifying life for SMEs.

3 (European Waste Catalogue, Eco Management and Audit Scheme, Public Procurement) of our 21 proposals were taken over bythe EU Commissions High Level Group on Administrative Burdens and endorsed for fast implementation.

The European Commission is due to present its 3 rd Strategic Report on Better Regulation at the end of January 2009 which shallcomprise the planned measures for the next two years. This is thus the right time to present our attached LLG mid-term review.

The LLG proposals bear an estimated saving potential for companies of approximately 2.5bn to 3.5bn.
http://www.sme-union.org/docshttp://www.sme-union.org/docshttp://www.sme-union.org/docshttp://www.sme-union.org/docs


5/18

5

Status of Implementation of the 21 proposals

Now, eight months after the presentation of our 21 suggestions:

3 proposals have already been implemented:

o Our suggestion concerning the EU Battery Waste Directive has been adopted in first reading and published on 5 December 2008. It has been clarifiedthat the directives obligations do not apply to batteries placed on the market before 26 September 2008. That means that European entrepreneurshave now saved huge logistical costs of recalling batteries which already have been placed on the market.

o Our suggestion concerning the Emissions Trading Directive has been positively integrated in a first reading agreement by European Parliament andCouncil; its publication is pending. It is a big success for European SMEs and industry the fact that in the future best-practice enterprises exposed tocarbon leakage will get emission certificates for free. The legal basis for preventing the worst case scenario Europes energy intense enterprisesmigrating due to exorbitant CO2 costs was laid down in the agreement between the EP and the European Council in December 2008. The SME opt-out of 25 000 tons and a capacity threshold of up to 35 Megawatt were agreed. Therefore EU member states are now allowed to exempt their

SMEs from the costly administrative monitoring and reporting compliance costs of the EU Emission Trading System. 63% of all installations(i.e. 2.4% of all installations emissions) have now the possibility to opt-out. The reduction of the administrative burden is EU-wide estimatedwith a minus of EUR 94.5 million.

o Our suggestion on the European Small Business Act (SBA) has been fully endorsed and politically adopted by the European Council last December.This important SME package needs to be fully implemented at national level: Member States are now expected to present national implementationplans. For example the modified Commissions proposal of the European Private Company, already approved by the EP Legal AffairsCommittee, as part of the SBA, will support internationally oriented SMEs saving time, money and red tape.

Another 13 proposals are currently analysed and considered at the EU institutional level:

o For example, bearing in mind the current European economic downturn, our urgent suggestions to cut red tape for EU structural funds have beentaken up by the European Commission. That means for SMEs that money will soon become faster and easier accessible for businesses in the

regions.

The LLG will continue to push for the implementation of all proposals presented, at all legislative levels, to reach the goal of reducing red tape by 25 per centby 2010.


6/18

6

Part I: Existing Law

Concerned legislation Status of implementation

1. Minimum safety and health requirements at temporary ormobile construction sites (Council Directive 92/57/EEC)

Formulation of the problem:The Directive provides in Art. 5 lit.c) that during the preparation phasethe coordinator has to prepare a file appropriate to the characteristicsof the project containing relevant safety and health information to betaken into account during any subsequent works. According to Art. 6lit. c) this file has to be updated to take account of the progress of the

work and any changes which have occurred. This provision may helpto reduce costs for any other enterprise carrying out future work on thebuilding, but it places an additional burden on the enterprise currentlyworking on it.

Status of implementation: We have called for the deletion of theup-date requirement in the safety and health document for laterworks in the construction sites directive. This has not beenimplemented so far.

Status quo: Nevertheless, the European Commission has alreadyacknowledged the need for action in this field in its report on mobileconstruction sites which has been presented on 12 November 2008.

Probability of implementation: In this report, the Commission has

announced the provision of guidelines regarding the safety andhealth document, which should reduce the administrativeobligations for companies in this area to a minimum.

Lobbying: Traditionally, the tripartite Consultative Committee forSafety and Health is involved in the drafting of such guidelines.

2. Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in theterritory of the country (8th Council Directive 79/1072/EEC andCouncil Directive 2008/9/EC)

Formulation of the problem:Taxable persons who paid VAT in the context of their business in aMember State, to which they did not supply any goods or services,can apply for tax refund in the relevant Member States (this is oftenthe case when participating in fairs and exhibitions). Rights ofdeduction vary considerably across Member States, which makesdeduction possible in some countries, while restricting it or notallowing for it in others. These differences apply in particular to the

Status of implementation: First of all, diverging national provisionsof recoverable costs have to be respectively harmonised. Thisrepresents the basis for the second step: taxable persons shouldget the VAT refunded directly through their VAT declarationsubmitted in their country of establishment (so called cross-borderdeduction). This would bring considerable simplification forentrepreneurs, since they could get their foreign VAT refunded thesame way they do in their country of establishment (which wouldalso eliminate the language problem). In case the clearing solutionwas implemented without prior harmonisation of refundable costs,entrepreneurs would get their VAT refunded according to deductionlaws (and restrictions) of their country of establishment. The


7/18

7

following charges: fuel, automobile costs, al imentation andaccommodation costs, tolls, gifts, luxury goods, etc. Despite someimprovements for entrepreneurs, arrangements for the refund of valueadded tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the

country cause problems and therefore expenses for businesses. Inboth systems the entrepreneur needs to know the VAT according totax deduction provisions (and restrictions in particular) in the MemberStates of fixed establishment. The entrepreneur needs to make use ofthe language set by the Member States (Member States can chooselanguage: restriction to national language is also legal). Hence,language knowledge is necessary for successful tax refund.

entrepreneur would receive the VAT refund according to deductionlaws of the Member States, in which he/she paid the VAT. Thisprovision would lead to negative consequences for Member Statesthat handle input tax deduction more restrictively. This suggestion

has not yet been implemented. The harmonisation and the refund inthe territory of establishment have not yet been achieved.

Status quo: For instance on the website of the Austrian Ministry forFinance the application forms of all other EU-Member States havebeen made available, including explanatory documents andguidelines.But this service depends on the will of the fiscaldepartments in the other Member States to provide their documentsonline. With Directive 2008/9/EC it will be possible for companies asof 1.1.2010 to submit their request for refund electronically.

Probability of implementation: The harmonisation of all national

legal provisions on the refund of VAT in the EU-27 is very unlikely.But: The refund in the country of establishment according to thenational legal provisions would be possible also withoutharmonisation. This could be a feasible solution.

3. Intrastat Regulation (Regulation (EC) 638/2004)

Formulation of the problem:The present Intrastat-System (statistics on trade of goods betweenMember States) is based on the collection of both trade flows (importsand exports) within the EU. For example, there are mirror data

available for German imports from exporting country Austria, whichcorrespond to Austrian dispatches to Germany. Currently, thismirroring data may not be seen as redundant according tocomprehensive research on mirror differences on the one hand anddue to different parameters used for arrivals and dispatches on theother hand. Intrastat-Statistics is - when measured in time unit - a veryburdensome statistical provision, and generally, statistics are

Status of implementation: Currently discussed and evaluated atEU level.

Status quo: The publication of the decision concerning the MEETS-Program is pending. This programme creates the framework forevaluating concrete measures in order to solve the existing

challenges facing economic statistics, such as the Single FlowSystem. Furthermore, a proposal for a Regulation amending theIntrastat Regulation is in first reading in the Council. The proposalshall inter alia - reduce administrative burdens by lowering thecoverage rate of data collected. During the negotiations in theCouncil, the French Presidency proposed a reference to the SingleFlow Systems in one of the recitals as a long-term efficiency


8/18

8

perceived by businesses as one of the most burdensome informationduties at all. Therefore, a reform of the Intrastat-System must aim at adouble objective: to increase statistical quality and at the same time toreduce reporting burdens on businesses.

reduction measure.

Probability of implementation: Likely.

4. Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,energy, transport and postal services sector (Directive2004/17/EC)

Formulation of the problem:The administrative formalities required to access EU subsidies areextremely onerous for SMEs, which generally do not have the meansto involve external experts in this process. Article 67 of the directivesets out statistical obligations that necessitate considerable survey

expenses.


Probability of implementation: A revision of the directive would bevery difficult, as it took the then 15 Member States 4 years to reachan agreement on its present form. The statistical obligations wewould like to see abolished or at least significantly simplified resultfrom WTO level. Therefore the General Procurement Agreementwould probably have to be renegotiated before any changes couldbe made at EU level.

Probability of implementation: Difficult.

5. Digital Tachographs (Regulation (EC) 561/2006)

Formulation of the problem:Unlike passenger traffic, legislation for carriage by road does not havethe same limits for the compulsory use of digital tachographs or thesame applicability of social legislation as most limits of relatedlegislation. In practice, this difference leads to serious problems thatneed to be tackled urgently.


Status quo: No proposal for a new formulation is foreseen in thenear future which is mostly due to the fact that in some MemberStates, the regulation as it is, only now is being implemented.

Lobbying: However, we encourage enterprises that encounterthese problems to take them up with their respective European

associations in order to raise awareness in Brussels.

6. Distance Contract (Directive 97/7/EC)

Formulation of the problem:Due to the highly complex non-harmonised national rules on distancecontracts, a great number of SMEs limit themselves to nationalmarkets instead of conducting their business in other EU countries,


Status quo: On 8 October 2008 the Commission has presented aproposal for a directive on consumer rights, which foresees fullharmonisation in consumer law. But the concrete provisions are


9/18

9

thus profiting from the Internal Market. Additional civil or administrativelaw sanctions applicable in other Member States in case of failure tocomply with the information requirements of the above Directives mayact as a further disincentive for SMEs to conduct business cross-

border.

burdensome: especially the right of withdrawal and the informationobligations for businesses.

Probability of implementation: Still unclear, it will depend on theongoing legislative procedure.

Lobbying: Ongoing.

7. E-Commerce (Directive 2000/31/EC and Directive 2003/58/EC)

Formulation of the problem:According to the above-mentioned provisions, businesses with aninternet presence are required to provide a great deal of informationon their websites and corporate businesses also on their e-mails,letters and order forms. Certain information about businesses shouldclearly be publicly available. However, the requirements set out in

these two directives may well create burdens for SMEs conductingbusiness via the internet. As these provisions only set out minimumstandards and leave it to the Member States to impose morecomprehensive and complex information requirements, they pave theway for disparities within the EU. Indeed, national legislationtransposing the provisions of the two directives varies considerablybetween Member States, thus making it more costly for undertakingsto comply with these rules they are subject to when conductingbusiness over the internet with partners in other Member States.Therefore, the provisions mentioned represent a burden for cross-border trade within the EU.


Status quo: On 8 October 2008 the Commission has presented aproposal for a directive on consumer rights, which foresees fullharmonisation in consumer law. This proposal contains burdensomeprovisions for SMEs (e.g. concerning information obligations andthe right of withdrawal, which shall be prolonged to 14 days). Manyof the information obligations are too far reaching and unnecessary.The E-commerce-directive itself, which also contains manyinformation obligations, has not yet been fully harmonised.

Lobbying: Ongoing.

8. First and Fourth Company Law Directives (Council Directives68/151/EEC and 78/660/EEC)

Formulation of the problem:The 1st Company Law Directive contains the obligation of companiesto publish inter alia their financial statements both in commercial


Status quo: The two directives are currently revised in order toavoid unnecessary burdens for companies due to publicity andannex requirements. The Commission proposal for the revision of


10/18

10

registers and in national gazettes. According to the 4 th Company LawDirective, micro and small companies are required to prepare andpublish a condensed balance sheet every financial year. Microcompanies typically outsource the administrative work related to the

condensed balance sheet to external advisors, i.e. typicallyaccountants and auditors. The main reason for this is that these verysmall companies typically do not have the required competences.

the 4th Company Directive with the option for Member States tochoose whether to exempt micro enterprises from the Europeanrules on annual accounts and the Commission proposal for therevision of the 1st Company Directive with the objective to eliminate

the costs of publishing in the national gazette information that hasbeen already disclosed in commercial registers are currentlyundergoing the co-decision procedure in the European Parliamentand in the Council.

Probability of implementation: Very likely.

9. Waste Incineration Directive (Directive 2000/76/EC)

Formulation of the problem:Prescriptive, legally binding requirements for the monitoring ofemissions to air; no exemptions for non significant emissions; nogeneral capacity threshold in the directive.


Status quo: Small incineration plants should be excluded from thescope of the directive through the introduction of a capacity

threshold. In addition, Member States should be given the option togrant exemptions from certain monitoring requirements when witha view to the normal operation of a plant the compliance with theemission limit values is ensured. An exemption clause is alreadypart of the IPPC review package as put forward by the Commissionon December 21st 2007 (COM (2007) 843 final). However thereshould also be a general exemption rule for smaller wasteincineration plants. The co-decision procedure is pending.

Probability of implementation: Very likely.

10. REACH (Regulation (EC) 1907/2006)

Formulation of the problem:The REACH Regulation does not exempt all recovered substancesfrom the registration requirement in accordance with Title II. Pursuantto the current legislation, substances out of a recovery process whichare not the same as substances already registered (Article 2paragraph 7 letter (d)) have to be treated like imported or newly


Probability of implementation: Still unclear.

Lobbying: To lobby for our position SME UNION has organised aworking breakfast on REACH & the Reality for SMEs on 8 October2008 with representatives of the European Parliament, EuropeanCommission, businesses, REACH agency experts and French EU


11/18

11

manufactured ones. Council Presidency

11. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE-Directive2002/96/EC)

Formulation of the problem:The WEEE does not provide for a de-minimis-rule for smallproducers. As a result, particularly businesses which place only a verysmall number of products on the market encounter burdens relating tothe requirement to participate in a collection and treatment system.


Status quo: The Commission proposed the revision of the WEEE-Directive in December 2008. In this framework, the exemption forsmall producers will be demanded.


Lobbying: Ongoing.

12. European Waste Catalogue (Commission Decision 2000/532EC ; Waste Statistics Regulation (EC) 2150/2002 ; WasteShipment Regulation; Basel Convention)

Formulation of the problem:According to current practice, several waste classification codes areused at European and national level. That creates additional burdenfor the businesses concerned, e.g. in waste shipment or other foreigntrade related procedures, or in statistical reporting.


Status quo: The Commission is doing preparatory work for therevision of the European Waste Catalogue with the aim of a far-reaching harmonisation.

Probability of implementation: It is likely that the different wasteclassification codes on waste statistics and waste shipment will bemaintained.

13. Battery Directive (Directive 2006/66/EC)

Formulation of the problem:Article 6(2) of the Battery Directive 2006/66/EC stipulated that

batteries that did not fulfil the requirements of the Directive were not tobe placed on the market after 26 September 2008 or they needed tobe withdrawn from it. It was unclear whether this meant that measureshad to be taken to withdraw batteries currently on the market but notmeeting the directives provisions.

Status of implementation: Proposal implemented! We demandedthe clarification that the directives obligations shall not apply tobatteries that had been placed on the market before 26 September2008.

Status quo: The battery directive has been amended in firstreading and was published in the EC official journal on 5 December2008 (L327/08, page 7) as Directive of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries andaccumulators as regards placing batteries and accumulators on the


12/18

12

market.

14. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPCDirective 2008/1/EC)

Formulation of the problem:Businesses falling within the scope of Directive 2008/1/EC areconfronted with numerous information obligations which cumulativelylead to costly administrative burdens. In some cases, this seemsinappropriate compared with the anticipated positive environmentalimpact from such activities.


Status quo: The required action to review some of the existingthresholds in Annex I of Directive 2008/1/EC with a view to raisingor changing them in order to reduce bureaucracy for SMEs has notyet been taken up by the Commission. The IPPC directive is part ofthe industrial emissions package (Industrial Emissions Directive)which was presented by the Commission in late 2007. Politicalnegotiations have just started.

Probability of implementation: Difficult at this stage.

Lobbying: Ongoing.

15. Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS-Regulation (EC)761/2001)

Formulation of the problem:Some parts of the existing voluntary EMAS regulation (EMAS-II) areperceived by companies as very burdensome. Companies whichdecide not to register for the Environmental Management System arenot granted the administrative simplifications which are foreseen forregistered businesses.

Status of implementation: Implemented partially.

Status quo: TheCommission has presented a proposal for therevision of the EMAS-regulation in its SCP-package. But the originalgoal of better adapting EMAS to the needs of SMEs has not beenmet. The proposal includes impracticable regulations and instead ofthe reduction of administrative burdens, additional burdens arecreated.

Probability of implementation: We have urged for a re-tabling ofthe proposal, but this is not very realistic, because only Germanyand Austria have announced their disagreement. It is more likelythat there will be some corrections in specific areas.

Lobbying: Ongoing.

16. Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatileorganic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in


Status quo: EU legislation addressing solvent emissions from


13/18

13

certain activities and installations (VOC)- Directive

Formulation of the problem:The VOC Directive lays down several very detailed obligations on the

monitoring and reporting of compliance with the emissions controlrequirements. This is particularly the case with the guidance for aSolvent Management Plan in Annex III. While Member States are notobliged to require operators to set up such plans pursuant with AnnexIII of Directive 1999/13/EC, no alternative is mentioned. Thus manyMember States have laid down in their national legislation arequirement for operators to establish such costly plans. However,there are less onerous instruments to adequately demonstratecompliance with the binding emissions controls.

stationary sources should clearly provide more SME-friendlyinstruments to demonstrate compliance with the emission controlsor even leave the choice of such instruments to Member States.This has not yet been taken up by the Commission. The VOC

Directive is part of the industrial emissions package which waspresented by the Commission in late 2007. Political negotiationshave just started.

Probability of implementation: Difficult at this stage.

17. Emissions Trading Directive (ETS-Directive 2003/76/EC)

Formulation of the problem:The ETS Directive also covers smaller combustion installations, partlyoperated by SMEs. Operators of such installations must thus complywith certain information obligations, in particular with costly monitoringand reporting requirements. Installations with annual emissions below50.000 tons are responsible for only 6% of the total CO2 emissions ofall stationary sources covered by the ETS Directive.

Status of implementation: Basic legal problems solved.

Status quo: First reading agreement between EP and Council,publication in the Official Journal is pending. The SME opt-out of 25000 tons (as a compromise between the position of businesses for50 000 and the Commissions proposal of 10 000 tons) and acapacity threshold of up to 35 Megawatt were agreed. The basicsfor tackling the carbon leakage problem are laid down in theDirective (100% free allocation of certificates up to 2020).

Lobbying: Strong lobbying activities of all kinds: amendments,voting lists, briefing events, personal contacts in Brussels, pressreleases, position papers; SME UNION came out with several press

releases and close cooperation with SME Circle.

18. Structural Funds (Regulation (EC) 1080/2006, Regulation (EC)1081/2006, Regulation (EC) 1082/2006, Regulation (EC)1083/2006, Regulation (EC) 1084/2006, Regulation (EC)1341/2008; Proposal COM (2008) 803, Proposal COM (2008)813, Proposal COM (2008) 838

Status of Implementation: Partially implemented

Status quo: The Commission is already aware of the problem.Because of the financial crisis, the Commission and the MemberStates are interested that structural funds are channelled morerapidly into the regions. Currently several singular simplification


14/18

14

Formulation of the problem:

Companies supported by structural funds often have to comply withcomplicated documentation requirements. This implies an increasedrisk of delay of the payment of EU funds or, in worst case, denial orrepayment of the funds even when the idea behind the project is inline with the programmes objective. In addition, audits and ex-postcontrols of smaller projects are often very time-consuming and labourintensive for companies. Also for SME associations and Chambers ofCommerce the requirements are often bureaucratic and thereforedisencourage these organisations to participate in projects co-financed by the structural funds.

measures have been decided (concerning income generatingprojects) or will be decided soon (easier recognition of flat ratecosts, use of lump sums). Recently the Commission started a newworking group with the Member States on further simplification

which will concentrate on control systems and auditing.Probability of implementation:Not unlikely, currently increasedpressure for simplification because of financial crisis (see above).

Lobbying:Ongoing, pointing out that the over-bureaucratisation inthe administration of structural funds has become detrimental inreaching cohesion policy goals, and making concrete proposals forsimplification.


15/18

15

Part II: Forthcoming Law


19. Food labelling (Directive 2000/13/EC; Council Directive90/496/EEC, proposal for a regulation COM(2008)40)

Formulation of the problem:Labelling is the most restrictive element for the food production sector.It contains a multitude of provisions and complex legal requirements.This places a heavy burden on SMEs. In other legal areas a hugeamount of records are requested. In many areas, experts opinions are

prescribed. This is costly for SMEs.


Status quo: The proposal for a regulation of the EuropeanParliament and the Council on the provision of food information tothe consumers (COM (2008) 40 final) aims to replace Directives2000/13/EC and 90/496/EEC. Instead of simplifying the existingdirectives, the proposal contains further bureaucratic obligations forSMEs. Those obligations (as nutrition information for every food) do

not always translate into helpful information for consumers, but aresometimes confusing. Furthermore, the proposal includes thepossibility for Member States to apply stricter provisions. Theintended harmonisation will not be reached through a differentiatedapproach and through different Member States provisions. Theproposal for a regulation is currently under discussion in firstreading by EP and Council.

Probability of implementation: Still unclear. The regulation willprobably be adopted in March 2009.

Lobbying: Ongoing.

20. Right of disabled persons travelling by air (Regulation (EC)1107/2006)

Formulation of the problem:After coming into effect on 26 July 2008, article 6.2. Transmission ofinformation in particular will cause serious problems for tour


Status quo: According to ECTAA (The European Travel Agents'and Tour Operators' Associations) it is already generally acceptedthat tour operators and travel agencies only inform the airline and


16/18

16

operators. In case the tour operator receives a notification of the needfor assistance by a person with reduced mobility, it is obliged totransmit the information concerned at least 36 hours before thepublished departure time of the flight to the operating air carrier, and

all concerned airports (departure, transit, arrival).

the airline notifies the airports accordingly. However, this claim hasnot been implemented on paper. To guarantee legal certainty fortour operators it should be aimed for removing the respectivepassage in Art. 6 of the regulation.


21. IFRS for SMEs

Formulation of the problem:The IASB has published an exposure draft of a proposed IFRS forSmall and Medium-sized Entities (ED IFRS for SMEs). Like the fullIFRS for capital market oriented enterprises, this standard could beintegrated into Community acquis in the future. In this regard the LLGstresses that the development of IFRS for private entities must notresult, even in the long run, in any legal obligation of SMEs to apply

the full IFRS or the IFRS for private entities.


Status quo: The revised standard (IFRS for private entities) will bepublished in the first trimester of 2009.

Probability of implementation: At this stage there are no signsthat it will be integrated in Community law.


17/18

17

Part III: Small Business Act


Small Business Act forEurope (SBA) Status of implementation: Adopted, to be mainly implemented atnational level.

Status quo: The SBA has been adopted in December 2008.

Our suggestion on the European Small Business Act (SBA) waswell received and the EU December summit fully endorsed andadopted politically this important SME package to be nowimplemented on Member States level.

Lobbying: SME UNION and EUROCHAMBRES have held severalevents and also lead discussion in SME Coordination Group; writteninput, LLG proposals, press releases.


18/18

18

All rights reserved.

Extracts - only with list of references and after consultation.

IMPRINT, Owner and editor:Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Union of the European People's Party (EPP)

22, Rue de Pascale, 1040 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 233 38-38,www.sme-union.org, [email protected]

Responsible for content:

Patrick Voller, Secretary General, SME UNION of the [email protected],Tel: +32 2 233 38 38

Ben Butters, Director European Affairs, [email protected],Tel: +32 2 282 08 71

Florent Barel, Vice-President of JADE (European Confederation of Junior Enterprises)[email protected], Tel: +32 2 42 01 752

Date of publication: January 2009
http://www.sme-union.org/http://www.sme-union.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sme-union.org/

Documents

INTERIM REPORT OF THE SME ´LOW´ LEVEL GROUP